On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >>> Make JSON datatypes only selectable if client encoding is UTF-8. >> >> Yuck. Do we have this sort of restriction for any other data type? > > No, and I don't think it's necessary to do it here, either. Nor would > it be a good idea, because then the return value of EXPLAIN (FORMAT > JSON) couldn't unconditionally be json. But I think the important > point is that this is an obscure corner case. Let me say that one > more time: obscure corner case! > > The only reason JSON needs to care about this at all is that it allows > \u1234 to mean Unicode code point 0x1234. But for that detail, JSON > would be encoding-agnostic. So I think it's sufficient for us to > simply decide that that particular feature may not work (or even, will > not work) for non-ASCII characters if you use a non-UTF8 encoding. > There's still plenty of useful things that can be done with JSON even > if that particular feature is not available; and that way we don't > have to completely disable the data type just because someone wants to > use EUC-JP or something.
Completely agree. I was going to write almost exactly this in reply. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
